IRB 2009 Ruling #4

[ddjamo]

this was included in an email from a territory chair. what do you think of paddy's words? I personally didn't take the ruling to mean what he is saying. possession and attempting to win are too different things. is this an actual confirmed quote? I agree - MAY make our role easier.
--------------------------------------
The text below is from Paddy O’Brien and is written for the benefit of, and from the perspective of, a referee:

“In simple terms this means that any player who is on his feet and has his hands on the ball prior to a Ruck being formed may continue to attempt to play/win the ball even when Ruck has formed.

This is going to require a rethink by referees but on the positive side may make our role at the breakdown a lot easier.

Please note this ruling takes effect from May 23rd with the exception of competitions which are not yet completed.”
--------------------------------------

 

[ex-lucy]

seems to make sense and backs up what i do anyway ... if he has 'good' hands on it ... carry on ... but he's got about 1 second to complete the move.

 

[beckett50]

Agree. It just seems a way of clarify the situation that is currently 'de rigeur'.

That is why I always advocate delaying calling "RUCK!" if there is still a contest ensuing. You can bet that as soon as you've called it the oppo player will stand up with the ball in his hands :wow:

 

[ddjamo]

Agree. It just seems a way of clarify the situation that is currently 'de rigeur'.

That is why I always advocate delaying calling "RUCK!" if there is still a contest ensuing. You can bet that as soon as you've called it the oppo player will stand up with the ball in his hands :wow:

isn't that the truth!

 

[Mat 04]

Anyone else thing this is going to just be a wrestling contest?

 

[ddjamo]

my issue is the ruling v paddy's description. possession v attempting. if you really think about it - it just allows the man on his feet just a little more latitude to win the one where there was the slight doubt and as beckett said - we yell "ruck" and at the exact same time the man on his feet emerges with the ball. question is - do we announce ruck a second later now? allow the contact to be made by two players over the ball but not say anything until the "attempt at possession" is over?

 

[Dixie]

Anyone else thing this is going to just be a wrestling contest?

I don't see how it can be. Tackle situation; 3rd man in gets hands on. There now seems to be a presumption that this player is in possession; in truth, the only thing preventing him getting possession is the tackled player "placing" the ball, but I think we can all agree that after the tackle, he loses possession if anyone else wants it, even while he's placing the ball.

4th man in then makes contact with 3rd man. This player has no rights to handle the ball - he has to ruck. So in essence this simplifies matters; apply "man on his feet is king" to the 3rd man. There are 3 options now: he wins the ball; tackled player gets pinged for holding on; 4th man gets pinged for handling in the ruck.

Ddjamo is right that this changes the ruck dynamic. In the past, the attackers have been given the benefit of the doubt. Nothing will change at Elite level, of course, as these rulings are consistently ignored there; but at Community level, the defence has been handed a big turnover opportunity. It's up to us as refs to ensure that they can benefit from it.

What this does do, or course, is introduce another new concept, though its not clear which one it is; it might be that of legally turning a ruck into a maul; or of having a ruck with the ball off the ground. In the past, we've taken the view that if the 3rd man got the ball off the ground before contact, then we'd likely have a maul rather than a ruck; play on once the bodies come in, and a wrestling match starts. Now, does the ruck continue with the ball off the ground, or does the ruck turn into a maul (in which case it can be legally collapsed - at least until the end of the season)?

I think this also requires assessors to rethink this issue of calling ruck early. A ruck has always been formed when the 4th man hits the 3rd, but the advice has been to avoid calling ruck because precisely this issue is likely to arise; as Beckett50 says, the ball will be ripped from the tackled player the second after you call Ruck. Now, however, you need to call ruck early in order to make clear to the 4th man that he has no rights to the ball - only to ruck the 3rd man.

Might there not also be a safety issue? With my coach's hat on, I can imagine some of the forwards coaches I know advocating that the 4th player should lead with a foot, trying to get the boot behind the ball between the 3rd man's two arms, making it impossible for the 3rd man to do anything with the ball he's got possession of, and allowing the boot to be drawn back, bringing the ball with it.

I think this will significantly affect back row play.

 

[OB..]

I have long advocated that there should be a law dealing with transitions between phases. That would force the law makers to face up to the various problems instead of tackling them piecemeal.

 

[PaulDG]

I'll repeat and amplify what I wrote on the RFU forum earlier.

I simply don't understand this ruling.

I find, I "can't get my head round" the way it's been written. I can't sort out what they mean and how they want things to be managed.

They seem to recognise this ruling is a Big One - if it's not then surely there's no reason to delay its implementation until next season?

But no notes, no videos. Nothing so far from RFU or society about training.

Dixie's description of what it may mean makes a great deal of sense to me - as do his comments that this is actually a huge change in the way the breakdown is managed, a huge shift in balance towards the defence and potentially a huge change in the game that will cause uproar if coaches do not prepare their players for it - from U9s to anything below the TV game.

Yet it slips in so very quietly.

...

It does occur to me that we ought to post the ruling again on the more visible part of this site - get Chopper's comments on it. Perhaps he can make more sense of it than me!!

 

[ddjamo]

glad I'm not the only one that feels that way. I will be ref'ing all summer with that #4 looming over me...

 

[Simon Thomas]

PaulDG - I was initially pretty dismissive of this ruling. Having now read it fully, I share some of your concerns.

I am sure RFU Refs Dept will produce guidance as soon as possible, but the guys are going through Panel and Group selection boards, final Panel appointments for end of season, organising conference, etc so are a bit busy right now.

At Society level it hasn't even hit our radar yet, and likewise we have grading, development squad selection, and AGM / finance reports to deal with at the moment.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I had started another thread about this because I didn't see this one.

I cannot understand why you find this ruling confusing. Its very clear!

Providing a player from either side on their feet after a tackle comply with all aspects of Law 15 and have the ball in their hands prior to contact with an opposition player on his feet those players may continue with possession of the ball even if a player from the opposition makes contact with those players in possession of the ball.

This means that the tackler, getting to his feet, or the first fetcher arriving at the breakdown, on his feet, who grabs the ball, does not have to let go of the ball AT ANY TIME EVEN IF SUBSEQUENTLY A RUCK IS FORMED. This player is allowed to hold onto the ball indefinitely.

This does precisely what I have been wanting to see at the breakdown for a long time; that the emphasis on who has to let go of the ball at the formation of the ruck has now changed from the "fetcher" to the tackled player. When a ruck has formed, the tackled player must still let the ball go but the "fetcher" does not. This is exactly what I outlined to Mr O'Brien in the letter I wrote to him about 6 months ago (see this thread)

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=7690

I am 100% in favour of this interpretation of the breakdown law (as I should since it was my idea). It helps to prevent the tackled player from cheating long enough for their support to arrive. Under this ruling, the only way for the opposition to get the ball back is to commit more forwards to the breakdown to drive the "fetcher" over, and therefore, being no longer on his feet, he will now have to let go. More forwards from both sided committed to the breakdown will mean less fatties cluttering up the backline and acting as pillars either side of the ruck.

 

[Deeps]

I had started another thread about this because I didn't see this one.

I cannot understand why you find this ruling confusing. Its very clear!


This means that the tackler, getting to his feet, or the first fetcher arriving at the breakdown, on his feet, who grabs the ball, does not have to let go of the ball AT ANY TIME EVEN IF SUBSEQUENTLY A RUCK IS FORMED. This player is allowed to hold onto the ball indefinitely.

This does precisely what I have been wanting to see at the breakdown for a long time; that the emphasis on who has to let go of the ball at the formation of the ruck has now changed from the "fetcher" to the tackled player. When a ruck has formed, the tackled player must still let the ball go but the "fetcher" does not. This is exactly what I outlined to Mr O'Brien in the letter I wrote to him about 6 months ago (see this thread)

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=7690

I am 100% in favour of this interpretation of the breakdown law (as I should since it was my idea). It helps to prevent the tackled player from cheating long enough for their support to arrive. Under this ruling, the only way for the opposition to get the ball back is to commit more forwards to the breakdown to drive the "fetcher" over, and therefore, being no longer on his feet, he will now have to let go. More forwards from both sided committed to the breakdown will mean less fatties cluttering up the backline and acting as pillars either side of the ruck.

Ian, I don't see anything new in what you advocate, this is the way I thought everybody refereed. You think 'tackle', 'tackle', 'tackle', then the third man in takes hold of the ball before making contact with an opponent on his feet you think 'tackled player release'; fourth man in makes contact you thinK 'maul'. Third and fourth arrive together and make contact, 'Ruck, no hands'. Any opposition contact over the ball by players on their feet maintains the status quo with regard to hands; if the ball was already held off the ground then 'Maul' if not, 'Ruck'. If contact is made over the ball and it is not off the ground by this stage then it's too late, it's a ruck or you are penalising a player on the floor.

 

[Ian_Cook]

"Hold onto the ball", implies he already has possession, which would imply that what follows is a Maul.

NO

The ruling refers to Law 15 (tackle) and Law 16 (Ruck)

No mention is made of Law 17 (Maul)

A Ruck can be formed by TWO players, where as a Maul is formed by THREE, one of which MUST be a team-mate of the player holding the ball (I'll call him the "fetcher")

If the fetcher, on his feet, is holding the ball still being held by the tackled player on the ground and one opponent binds onto him, this is a ruck, and in the situation that applies in the ruling, the fetcher, provided he is, and remains on his feet, can continue to hold the ball. Even if further opponents bind on, it is still a Ruck. It does not become a Maul until at least one of the fetcher's team-mate bind on, and then the "fetcher" doesn't have to release at all.

This ruling will be great for the game, because it allows the fetcher (and only the fetcher) to keep the ball in hand until his team-mates arrive, effectively to turn the Ruck into a Maul. This will open up the game considerably because the fetcher has effectively won the contest for the ball. If the opposition want to prevent the fetcher's team turning the Ruck into a Maul, they will have to commit players to the breakdown into order to drive the fetcher to ground. The fetchers team will, of course, want to make sure this doesn't happen, so they too will have to commit more players to the breakdown. It also makes it much harder for the tackled player to cheat, because previously, they could successfully cheat until their team-mates have arrived.

Now all we need to do is get rid of "squeeze ball"

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, I don't see anything new in what you advocate, this is the way I thought everybody refereed. You think 'tackle', 'tackle', 'tackle', then the third man in takes hold of the ball before making contact with an opponent on his feet you think 'tackled player release'; fourth man in makes contact you thinK 'maul'. Third and fourth arrive together and make contact, 'Ruck, no hands'. Any opposition contact over the ball by players on their feet maintains the status quo with regard to hands; if the ball was already held off the ground then 'Maul' if not, 'Ruck'. If contact is made over the ball and it is not off the ground by this stage then it's too late, it's a ruck or you are penalising a player on the floor.

I disagree. This is very different to how the Law has been applied and it has changed the emphasis on who must release

Scenario: Red player is tackled by Blue tackler who immediately releases and gets immediately to his feet, then grabs the ball. At this moment, BOTH the Red and Blue players are holding the ball. Another red player arrives and grabs the Blue player. Its now a ruck and you call "Ruck, hands off".

Under current Law, if neither player releases, you are obliged to penalise Blue for hands in the Ruck.

Under the Ruling, the Blue player does not have to release the ball at all, so you are obliged to penalise the Red player for not releasing

The same would apply to the scenario where a player from either side arrives at the breakdown before the tackler has a chance to release and get to his feet. Whoever is first to get his hands on the ball to be allowed to keep holding the ball even after you call "Ruck"


Whichever way you slice it, this ruling changes the obligations of the players at the breakdown as well as those of the referee

 

[ddjamo]

it basically gives the edge to the man on his feet rather than the man on the ground allowing him to "play the ball"....I agree. but what happens after the man tugs on the ball, two more from opposition come in, two from his side...are we going to have more stagnant mauls? after the "fetcher" has the ball...can the opposition now strip it from him? I think there is more to it than you think. there will be variables to be dealt with.

 

[David J.]

Who reads these things before they go out for publication. The way it's phrased makes it very confusing. The discussion has been good, but I'm still getting tripped up by this phrase:

"Law 16(b) refers to a player from each side in physical contact over the ball and implies that the ball is not in the possession of any player" can be read two ways.

1) That if the ball is still in the ball carrier's hands, then there's no ruck, so if two opponents have arrived in contact, either one can take it from him.

2) That if the ball is on the ground after the tackle, and the third man gets his hands on the ball, but is unable to bring it off the ground and gets "engaged", then that isn't a ruck, and hence no offsides.

Is that what this ruling is about?

 

[ddjamo]

Who reads these things before they go out for publication. The way it's phrased makes it very confusing. The discussion has been good, but I'm still getting tripped up by this phrase:

"Law 16(b) refers to a player from each side in physical contact over the ball and implies that the ball is not in the possession of any player" can be read two ways.

1) That if the ball is still in the ball carrier's hands, then there's no ruck, so if two opponents have arrived in contact, either one can take it from him.

2) That if the ball is on the ground after the tackle, and the third man gets his hands on the ball, but is unable to bring it off the ground and gets "engaged", then that isn't a ruck, and hence no offsides.

Is that what this ruling is about?

#2....even more confusing...it IS a ruck...yet the third man is allowed to play the ball with his hands.

the way it reads - only he (the "fetcher") has this exclusive right...nobody else can grab at it....until...when? it becomes a maul? so we have a "ruck with a privileged player?

 

[Bryan]

Ian, I think it will be harder for players than for the referees:

Previously, the 50/50 calls where we called "ruck" and therefore obliged players to release the ball is no longer the case - we are not looking for compliance from the players with their hands on the ball, but rather that those without their hands on the ball keep them off!

Dixie's point also gives us referees a lot more leeway in calling ruck - unless a player has clear possession of the ball (in which case we would say nothing), if 2 players are in contact over the ball fighting for it, calling ruck won't change anything or STOP the contest! Which means a better contest for the ball at the breakdown, which means more competition at the breakdown.

Players are now going to be coached to clearout the opposition, leaving the ball behind. Easier said than done!

 

[Ian_Cook]

it basically gives the edge to the man on his feet rather than the man on the ground allowing him to "play the ball"....I agree. but what happens after the man tugs on the ball, two more from opposition come in, two from his side...are we going to have more stagnant mauls? after the "fetcher" has the ball...can the opposition now strip it from him? I think there is more to it than you think. there will be variables to be dealt with.

I don't think it will be that difficult. If the fetcher succeeds in making the player on the ground let go, and lifts the ball off the ground, then what follows is what happens now; a maul might be formed, or the ruck might continue and produce second phase ball. If the fetcher is quick enough, he will get the ball clear of the breakdown pretty quickly. What this ruling does is widen the line between legal and illegal at the time the breakdown becomes a ruck. It allows the fetcher more time to make the tackled player let go.

The problem with the breakdown as it is current controlled, from the point of view of the fetcher (usually but not always the openside flanker) is that they are never quite sure how far they can push the Law with regard to how long they can keep holding the ball. The variables have always been

► When is a ruck actually formed?
► When does the referee think a ruck has been formed?
► How long is THIS referee going to allow before PKing the fetcher?
► How long between when the referee thinks "ruck" formed and when he actually says so?
► Will the referee actually say a ruck is formed, or will he just PK?

All of this is down to individual interpretation of the referee, and the poor old fetcher has to spend the first part of the game testing the boundaries to find out where they are for any given ref. The timing is measured literally in fractions of a second.

What this ruling means is that it will no longer matter when a ruck is formed. The fetcher knows that he, and only he, can hold onto the ball. He has won possession for his side, and the only way the opposition can get it back is to:

a. Drive him to ground so that he has to let go, or
b. Strip it off him, if they can, when it becomes a maul


This will bring new meaning to the term... hands off, because it will likely only apply to the tackled player.